RealGM Top 100 List #54

[penbeast0]

Top PGs left: Kevin Johnson and Chauncey Billups; never been sold on Cousy though I can see him here, same for Archibald and Penny Hardaway, the main short peak guys. Tim Hardaway and Mark Price are a small step down.

Wings: English, Sam Jones, Vince Carter had long outstanding careers. Nique and Iverson are a step down with their efficiency and defensive issues plus Iverson's attitude problems. Sidney Moncrief may be the 3rd greatest 2 guard ever . . . for 4 years, but his injuries limit his career value. Arizin is the dark horse 50s guy but don't see him as better than Sam Jones. Sharman and Greer were considered better than Sam Jones in their peaks but the numbers for Jones look better.

Best vigs left: Elvin Hayes is the Iverson/Nique type with weak efficiency (and poor passing) but with excellent defense and rebounding, and he was an ironman. My favorite is Mel Daniels with his 2 ABA MVPs and 3 rings (2 as clearly the best player) -- played like Alonzo Mourning offensively and Moses defensively. Bill Walton, Connie Hawkins, and Bob McAdoo for short peak guys . . . in that order for me I would guess. McAdoo, Neil Johnston, Amare, Issel, Spencer Haywood have offensive creds but bigs who don't play defense are problematic for me. Ben Wallace, Nate Thurmond, or the Worm also could come up here as well as guys like DeBusschere, Bobby Jones, etc., even Zelmo Beaty and Yao Ming. Lots of names to consider.

Vote: Alex English.

***********************************************************************************************************************************
Alex English was on some great offense/bad defense teams but that was with Dan Issel and Kiki Vandeweghe inside -- possibly the worst pair of defensive bigs to ever play; Kiki was worse than Amare and Issel was nowhere near Marion's ability to compare with Phoenix. And . . . like those Suns, English was the offensive focal point who led them to 5 top 5 offenses in 5 years (2 times best in league). When Issel retired and the Nuggets rebuilt around English and Fat Lever (Wayne Cooper and Danny Schayes were the main centers), they instantly went from bottom 5 in the league to top 10 DEFENSIVELY for 4 of the next 5 years. It was just disguised by the fact that they were still top 3 in the league in pace. During that period English played the role of go to scorer for a full decade but within that, with Kiki and Unseld, English was the primary post option, with Lever and normal bigs, he was the stretch the floor outside shooter, he even was the point forward when they used Mike Evans at 1.

Defensively he was a willing defender for a scorer; better than the likes of Nique, Dantley, King, or Aguirre, though not as good as Marques Johnson or James Worthy among his contemporaries. He guarded 3s and 4s most of the time, rarely 2s, though that was probably more personnel than talent since his best defensive asset was lateral quickness and he was slim and not that strong.

So, to sum up. English was not only the leading scorer of the 80s (over Bird, Nique, Kareem, etc.) on very good efficiency, he showed himself capable of leading a #1 offense for 5 years (as long as some players' peaks), a consistent above average defense for another 5 years and showed the ability to adapt his game to whatever the team's needs were without sacrificing efficiency or scoring volume.

[Joao Saraiva]

Vote for Allen Iverson once more. I didn't get to vote for anyone else so far.

"Iverson not only won the 2001 regular season MVP--though I think that Shaquille O'Neal deserved the honor that year--but he received at least one MVP vote in eight of his 13 full seasons. Iverson won the 1997 Rookie of the Year award and two All-Star MVPs while making the All-Star team 10 years in a row (2000-09). Iverson earned seven All-NBA selections, including three First Team nods.

ESPN noted that Iverson is one of only three players in NBA history who averaged at least 25 ppg, five apg and two spg--the others are Michael Jordan and Jerry West; of course, steals have only been officially recorded since 1973-74 in the NBA, so West's "career" average only includes 81 steals in 31 games in his final season, which means that in the past 35 years the only two players to average 25-5-2 during full length careers are Jordan and Iverson.

Numbers rarely tell the whole story but check out Iverson's NBA/ABA ranks in some key categories: fourth in career mpg (41.4), sixth in career scoring average (27.0 ppg), sixth in career spg (2.2), 11th in career free throws made (6277) and 22nd in career points (24,020)--and Iverson stepped up his game in the postseason, ranking second in career ppg (29.7, trailing only Michael Jordan), third in mpg (45.1, trailing only legendary iron man centers Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell) and seventh in spg (2.07, just behind Jordan).

Now, let's put those statistics in historical perspective. Iverson lapped the field in career regular season points among the six foot and under set (Hall of Famer Calvin Murphy is second with 17,949)--but he also scored more career points than Charles Barkley, Robert Parish, Adrian Dantley, Elgin Baylor, Clyde Drexler, Gary Payton or Larry Bird! The regular season career mpg leader list is dominated by Hall of Fame big men like Chamberlain, Russell, Jerry Lucas and Bob Pettit, plus powerfully built swingmen Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor and LeBron James. Jerry West is the only other relatively small player in the top ten and he is a legit 6-3; Latrell Sprewell, a 6-5 shooting guard, rounds out the top 10.

The free throw numbers are a testament to Iverson's mental and physical toughness: he repeatedly drove to the hoop, crashed into players who were literally 100 pounds heavier than he is, accepted the punishment and made the free throws. You can legitimately question Iverson's shot selection at times but you can never question his heart, his toughness or his will to win.

Iverson's defense is often berated but he was a two-time Big East Defensive Player of the Year at Georgetown and his steals numbers in the NBA attest to the fact that he certainly put forth some effort at that end of the court despite the huge offensive load that he carried. Iverson was not a lock down defender but he proved under Coach Larry Brown in Philadelphia that he could be a cog on a very good defensive team and lead that team to the NBA Finals.

Iverson won four NBA scoring titles, matching 6-7 Hall of Famer George Gervin and exceeding every other player in pro basketball history except for Jordan (10) and Chamberlain (seven). Iverson won as many scoring titles as Kobe Bryant, LeBron James and Dwyane Wade combined! It is certainly true that Iverson did not shoot a great percentage from the field but TNT commentator Doug Collins consistently made the excellent observation that because Iverson drew so much attention with his bold forays to the hoop his misses often turned into excellent offensive rebounding opportunities for his teammates.

Many players who attempt 18-20 or more field goals per game get labeled as "selfish gunners" (though no one says that about LeBron James or Dwyane Wade). I have often expressed justifiable skepticism about how assists are officially recorded but the assist still remains the only statistic we have to quantify passing and it is worth noting that Iverson ranked in the top ten in the NBA in that category four different times, amassing a career average of 6.2 apg--better than Walt Frazier, Dave Bing and Chauncey Billups, among others.

Iverson and Billups will always be linked, of course, because Detroit's trade of Billups and Antonio McDyess to Denver for Iverson in November 2008 seems--in retrospect--to be the beginning of the end of Iverson's career. Much has been written about that trade and its aftermath--and most of what has been written is garbage. Let's dispel a few myths:

1) Contrary to revisionist history, Iverson did not "fail" in Denver: he ranked seventh in scoring and eighth in assists in 2006-07 and third in scoring and ninth in assists in 2007-08. The Nuggets made the playoffs both years, including a 50 win season in 2007-08 that was the best regular season performance by that franchise since 1987-88. In 2007, the Nuggets lost in the first round of the playoffs to the eventual champion Spurs, winning one more playoff game against San Antonio than LeBron James' Eastern Conference champions did in the NBA Finals. In 2008, the Nuggets were swept in the first round by the eventual Western Conference champion Lakers; Iverson led the Nuggets in scoring and assists during that series, while Carmelo Anthony shot just .364 from the field and led the Nuggets in turnovers.

2) Although Billups certainly played very well for Denver last season, the "change in culture" in Denver largely consisted of big men Nene and Kenyon Martin getting healthy, Chris Andersen playing better than anyone expected and several Western Conference teams battling injuries to key players (Spurs, Mavs, Suns, Jazz), thus enabling the Nuggets to move up in the standings. The Nuggets exceeded their 2008 win total by four, blew by undermanned Dallas and New Orleans teams in the playoffs and then lost to the Lakers.

3) When the Pistons acquired Iverson, Joe Dumars said that the team would use Iverson's ability to create shots for himself and others to become a more explosive offensive team, particularly in the fourth quarter, a time when the Pistons too often became stagnant during the past few years in the playoffs. Early in the season, Iverson played brilliantly in a Detroit win over the Lakers but the Pistons inexplicably decided that Rodney Stuckey must be in the starting lineup no matter what. That meant that either Iverson or Richard Hamilton would have to come off of the bench, a role that neither All-Star player is accustomed to filling. It made no sense for the Pistons to bring in Iverson and not let him play the way that he is used to playing, especially when Dumars specifically said that he acquired Iverson to make the Pistons more explosive offensively.

There is merit to the argument that regardless of what was said to Iverson that he should do whatever his coach asks him to do--including coming off of the bench--but clearly Iverson is too honest and too prideful to do that; Iverson does not want to sit behind inferior players. I think that Iverson is still capable of averaging 20-plus ppg for a playoff team but the poor way that the Pistons treated him--and the defiant way that Iverson responded--has clearly lowered Iverson's perceived value. The Memphis experiment was obviously doomed from the start and the less that is said about that brief moment in his career the better.

It is bitterly ironic that in the immediate wake of Iverson's retirement announcement, Iverson's name was one of just six--the others being Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, LeBron James and Shaquille O'Neal--mentioned during ESPN's NBA Shootaround as a candidate for "Player of the Decade." Love him or hate him, there is no denying Iverson's colossal impact on NBA history."

By David Friedman.

Found it very interesting to see the points about Iverson with Denver, and also some other aspects.

However in terms of Iverson's positive impact I think it has all been said: trex made some awesome points about it but some people here choose to ignore that. Definitely had a better impact than Dantley for example. And I'm not saying bad about Dantley, I actually thought he was a great player and one of the few I'd see as a possibly ranking over Allen Iverson in the multiple run offs he had...

[Owly]

I'm voting Bob Lanier, composite post of my previous stuff why below

I'm voting Bob Lanier
Reasoning: looks like the best career added value by crude faux-EWA/WS combination. He's also high on a similar peak based ranking which I ended up posting a few threads back (43rd, and all those above him still available didn't maintain their peak anything close to how he did, and/or have era concerns). Team level D might be held against him but his Drtg (hardly perfect, but I think sufficient for the point/claim being made) in '74 when he played 81 games led the league.

A concern might be that he missed quite a few games, including playing (just) less than 65 games and 2500 minutes for three of his five short prime/extended peak years ('76, '77 and '78 of '74-'78). Still for that 5 year span he looks like the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league (even after minutes are factored in) and he lasted much better than McAdoo.
cf:
The five year span in question http://bkref.com/tiny/64BQL
The 70s: http://bkref.com/tiny/0DbJe

Reviews on D

Lanier is the big difference. He played only when in the mood before last season. He concentrated more on stopping other teams from penetrating and fourth in blocked shots with 247.

[individual bio]
Called "Moses" by his teammates ... For leading them out of the wilderness ...... trimmer last season ...... Defense was his biggest improvement

Depending on who's in there, the Pistons can make you work. When one of the "whos" is either Trapp or Howard Porter, the opponents can relax a bit. But Rowe, Ford, Mengelt, Kevin Porter, Money and Lanier will get down and play some defense. Lanier, in fact often surprises people by jumping out to pick up guards or forwards. He also clogs the middle nicely.
[individual bio]
Has become a very intimidating defensive player who, like Dave Cowens, is not afraid to switch out on unsuspecting forwards and guards.

Somewhat confusing. Lanier is a mammoth figure to try and get around [and some other decent players but the Porters are bad and the bench "woefully weak" ... comunication and fouling called a problem, perhaps coaching semi-implied as a problem based on that?]
[individual bio]
Can rebound, block shots, play defense, do everything but clean the kitchen floor ...... [unrelated but I've touched on this] Injuries have been a problem, though, but he has always played hurt

[Vitale will be looking to emphasize D] Lanier gives him a head start. That is the advantage of having a big center. Lanier seals off the middle and is tough and aggressive.

[individual bio]Devensively he can be as imposing as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or Bill Walton or Artis Gilmore

Depending on how much you allow hypotheticals, you might also consider that Detroit rushed him back in his rookie year which may have been detrimental to his long term health.

One quick and dirty study of his impact.

'76 Pistons
team points differential over the year -86 over 82 games, -1.048780488 per game
team points differential over 18 games without Lanier -92 over 18 games, -5.111111111 per game
team points differential over 64 games with Lanier +6 over 64 games, 0.09375 per game


'77 Pistons
team points differential over the year -85 over 82 games, -1.036585366 per game
team points differential over 18 games without Lanier -107 over 18 games, -5.944444444 per game
team points differential over 64 games with Lanier 22 over 64 games, 0.34375 per game

Lanier('s impact) looks a little worse in '78
'78 Pistons
team points differential over the year -102 over 82 games, -1.243902439 per game
team points differential over 19 games without Lanier -100 over 19 games, -4.347826087 per game
team points differential over 63 games with Lanier -2 over 63 games, -0.031746032 per game

Addendum at the top I say he's near the top of my (single year) peak WS/48-PER pythagorean ranking, the following are those above him who aren't in yet
PPR Score PPR Rank name
29.69848481 17 Amare Stoudemire
32.80243893 18 Neil Johnston
43.56604182 25 Paul Arizin
47.38143096 26 Bob McAdoo
54.3783045 30 Walt Bellamy
55.90169944 31 Terrell Brandon
63.07138812 33 Elton Brand
65.30696747 35 Ed Macauley
67.53517602 36 Emanuel Ginobili
68.01470429 37 Arvydas Sabonis
76.53103945 42 Larry Foust
77.46612163 43 Bob Lanier

All with era concerns; longevity/peak maintainance issues and/or problems defense/intangiables (Manu probably the least but minutes is an issue; for a comp see http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=2015).

I'm not as familiar with Lanier, but those WOWY numbers Owly is posting make him certainly worth a big look. Still, I wonder whether he is a superior candidate to someone like Elvin Hayes.

Look at any boxscore metric and it will say Lanier peaked (much) higher, I suspect they'd all say he added more career value and tbh how "valuable" at this point in the list are, for instance, Hayes' Win Shares garnered from sub .100 WS/48 seasons - he gets 19 Win Shares from such seasons - set greatness impact replacement level at something like .120 WS/48 and you'd take a huge chunk out of his apparent contribution, ditto with PER - where he never hit 20, which Eric Murdock and Matt Geiger did, okay that's OTT, and as I've said before the range/SD seems like it might be less in the 70s but in any case that affects Lanier just as much anyway.

Lanier doesn't have Hayes' baggage as a teammate (not sure he was entirely happy/positive by the end in Detroit but nothing like Hayes) and he rates as better by the metrics in the playoffs despite playing a large chunk of his playoff career past his prime in a tough conference (80s East). Lanier being a more willing passer might make him easier to build around too.

What does Hayes have an edge in? D, probably (though positional competition isn't equal on the accolade front), and minutes. To me, it's not nearly enough.

[penbeast0]

For Lanier, although the posts you are quoting talk about his defense over several years, the Detroit team numbers are lousy up through 74, really good in 75 when it says Lanier finally started to come to play defense every night, but then drop back to the bottom third of the league for the rest of the decade.

It looks more like Lanier focused on defense in 75 then went back to being only an occasional defender after that. Your in/out numbers do look impressive though; but Lanier played a lot of minutes on a lot of poor defensive squads. I was never a big Elvin Hayes fan but he was a proud man and wouldn't let anyone get the best of him. Lanier looked lazy quite frequently (though a clearly superior offensive player to Hayes if you count efficiency). And Hayes played much the same role for the Bullets that Lanier did for the Pistons. Although they called Hayes the PF, he was the main help defender and shot blocker while Unseld was the dirty work guy like a bigger Paul Silas or Bill Bridges.

[trex_8063]

Addendum at the top I say he's near the top of my (single year) peak WS/48-PER pythagorean ranking, the following are those above him who aren't in yet
PPR Score PPR Rank name
29.69848481 17 Amare Stoudemire
32.80243893 18 Neil Johnston
43.56604182 25 Paul Arizin
47.38143096 26 Bob McAdoo
54.3783045 30 Walt Bellamy
55.90169944 31 Terrell Brandon
63.07138812 33 Elton Brand
65.30696747 35 Ed Macauley
67.53517602 36 Emanuel Ginobili
68.01470429 37 Arvydas Sabonis
76.53103945 42 Larry Foust
77.46612163 43 Bob Lanier

I want to say you posted it once, but would you mind again posting the equation that arrives at these numbers?

[JordansBulls]

Vote: Dominique Wilkins

Scoring champion, finished 2nd in MVP voting in a league with peak Magic, Bird, Moses, Dr J, Kareem. Was the foundation of the Hawks franchise and nearly unstoppable.

[Quotatious]

Vote - Kevin Johnson

Best available offensive player - great scorer and playmaker, very efficient, capable of leading excellent offensive (and overall) teams. Great peak/prime, and better longevity than most of you guys would think (9-year stretch when he basically put up 20 points and 10 assists, with pretty good advanced metrics, playing 81% of possible games, so even his durability wasn't that bad). Decent playoff performer, as well.

[john248]

My vote goes to Kevin johnson. I was waffling between KJ, Manu, and McAdoo while also considering Lanier and Marques Johnson. With Lanier, I'd like to hear more about the guy. His defense is a concern, especially for a big. Anyways, with KJ, he's a peak player with questionable longevity. 20/10 scoring PG with great efficiency and notable playoff performances. Didn't have a 3pt shot where the defender could sag off of him, but that didn't matter at all given his speed and ability to handle the ball where he could take it to the cup or use his mid-range. As far as his passing and play making, definitely not top tier but still very good.

I do feel he should've gotten in sooner given his peak play. FWIW, I do have KJ ahead of Isiah Thomas on my list.

In the '89 first round in a sweep over the Nuggets; KJ averaged 31/3/13. In that second round 4-1 win over the Warriors, he did 20/7/11, and even held his own against the Lakers (despite a sweep), with 23/12 on terrific efficiency.

In '90, both he and Stockton faced each other. Neither shot the ball well, but KJ maintained better efficiency simply b/c he was much better at getting to the line (Stockton struggled from 3 in the series -- 1-13 from distance). Not to mention KJ was dealing with an intestinal virus which bothered him the entire series. And even despite this, in the pivotal game 5 (reminder: first round series only went 5 games), KJ drilled the GW jumper w/ nearly no time on the clock left to push the Suns into the 2nd round.

Then the Suns upset the heavily favored Lakers (best record in the NBA), even despite Magic having a terrific series. KJ finished that series w/ monster 30/16 and 37/8 games on great shooting. Not to mention, in G4, he had 11 points in the final 10 minutes to clinch that game, too. They lost in the WCF again, but KJ did 22/11 on 54%; so it's hard to pinpoint the blame on him.

In '91, KJ was outplayed by Stockton, but KJ had a hamstring(?) injury which severely limited him (wouldn't have been playing if it wasn't the playoffs -- in fact, very similar to Chris Paul in the 2nd round this season).

Against the Spurs in '92; he did 22.3 PPG and 15.6 APG on 59% TS. Did nearly 25/9 in the 2nd round. Hell, even in '93, which is not considered among his best seasons, was the ultimate x-factor in the series versus the Spurs; doing 21/9 on good efficiency for the series, and leading them in G1 (a game which Barkley went 5-21, while DRob dominated w/ 32/10 and 7 blocks). (In 95) The guy has had a 46/10 game on 65% TS in a G7 in the playoffs (and in the same series having a 43/6/9 game on near 80% TS). If Barkley doesn't have a below average offensive game (by his standards), and seven turnovers in that G7, then all of sudden we could be looking at the Suns winning that series, and KJ being recognized as putting up a ridiculous performance to lead the Suns to the WCF (27.8 PPG, 9.4 APG on 66% TS).

In '94, it was almost the same story against the Rockets, doing 27/4/10.

Bottom line is, I think KJ is a far greater threat to take over the game offensively, and be that closer in a sense, which Stockton wasn't able to do at the same level. And considering, KJ has proven he can lead elite offenses even w/ his more scoring mind-set, I'd take KJ.

[penbeast0]

My vote goes to Kevin johnson. I was waffling between KJ, Manu, and McAdoo while also considering Lanier and Marques Johnson. With Lanier, I'd like to hear more about the guy. His defense is a concern, especially for a big. Anyways, with KJ, he's a peak player with questionable longevity. 20/10 scoring PG with great efficiency and notable playoff performances. Didn't have a 3pt shot where the defender could sag off of him, but that didn't matter at all given his speed and ability to handle the ball where he could take it to the cup or use his mid-range. As far as his passing and play making, definitely not top tier but still very good.

I do feel he should've gotten in sooner given his peak play. FWIW, I do have KJ ahead of Isiah Thomas on my list.

In the '89 first round in a sweep over the Nuggets; KJ averaged 31/3/13. In that second round 4-1 win over the Warriors, he did 20/7/11, and even held his own against the Lakers (despite a sweep), with 23/12 on terrific efficiency.

In '90, both he and Stockton faced each other. Neither shot the ball well, but KJ maintained better efficiency simply b/c he was much better at getting to the line (Stockton struggled from 3 in the series -- 1-13 from distance). Not to mention KJ was dealing with an intestinal virus which bothered him the entire series. And even despite this, in the pivotal game 5 (reminder: first round series only went 5 games), KJ drilled the GW jumper w/ nearly no time on the clock left to push the Suns into the 2nd round.

Then the Suns upset the heavily favored Lakers (best record in the NBA), even despite Magic having a terrific series. KJ finished that series w/ monster 30/16 and 37/8 games on great shooting. Not to mention, in G4, he had 11 points in the final 10 minutes to clinch that game, too. They lost in the WCF again, but KJ did 22/11 on 54%; so it's hard to pinpoint the blame on him.

In '91, KJ was outplayed by Stockton, but KJ had a hamstring(?) injury which severely limited him (wouldn't have been playing if it wasn't the playoffs -- in fact, very similar to Chris Paul in the 2nd round this season).

Against the Spurs in '92; he did 22.3 PPG and 15.6 APG on 59% TS. Did nearly 25/9 in the 2nd round. Hell, even in '93, which is not considered among his best seasons, was the ultimate x-factor in the series versus the Spurs; doing 21/9 on good efficiency for the series, and leading them in G1 (a game which Barkley went 5-21, while DRob dominated w/ 32/10 and 7 blocks). (In 95) The guy has had a 46/10 game on 65% TS in a G7 in the playoffs (and in the same series having a 43/6/9 game on near 80% TS). If Barkley doesn't have a below average offensive game (by his standards), and seven turnovers in that G7, then all of sudden we could be looking at the Suns winning that series, and KJ being recognized as putting up a ridiculous performance to lead the Suns to the WCF (27.8 PPG, 9.4 APG on 66% TS).

In '94, it was almost the same story against the Rockets, doing 27/4/10.

Bottom line is, I think KJ is a far greater threat to take over the game offensively, and be that closer in a sense, which Stockton wasn't able to do at the same level. And considering, KJ has proven he can lead elite offenses even w/ his more scoring mind-set, I'd take KJ.

Marques was terrific, but going short careers, Moncrief was better. Equal offensively (Moncrief's efficiency makes up for Marques's rebounding), better defensively, and it wasn't until Moncrief became a focal point that that swarming undersized Bucks defense became their signature. (The "switching man to man, don't call it an illegal zone" defense.)

[Quotatious]

Didn't have a 3pt shot where the defender could sag off of him, but that didn't matter at all given his speed and ability to handle the ball where he could take it to the cup or use his mid-range.

Glad to see some support for KJ. I wonder how good he would've been if he developed a 3-point shot like he did in '97 (44.1% on 2.9 attempts - pretty amazing), earlier in his career. I know the 3-point line was shortened during the '96-'97 season, but still, it basically made him a complete offensive player (although he obviously lost a lot of his athleticism by '97, compared to the early 90s, just compensated very nicely with excellent 3-point shooting).

McAdoo is interesting, too. He was ranked 41st on the 2006 list, 43rd in 2008 and 52nd in 2011, so it seems like he should get in pretty soon this time, as well. A lot of posters value defense in bigs very highly (I do, as well, but some bigs are pretty special offensively, and make up for their defensive deficiencies with that), and that may explain why McAdoo isn't that highly regarded anymore. The fact that McAdoo played out of position at center (I mean defensively, he was out of position, because on offense, he was actually a positive mismatch against bigger guys, who couldn't keep up with his quickness, explosiveness, pretty good ballhandling for a bigman, and his shooting range), certainly hurts him a bit.

Lanier was an excellent scorer and a good rebounder (basically a rich man's Al Jefferson is how I see him), and while his defense looks suspect, based on the fact that Detroit was usually one of the worst defensive teams in the league during the 70s (except 1974 - that team ranked 3rd on defense, and was by far their best overall squad in that decade), it seems like he worked harder on defense towards the end of his career in Milwaukee.

Lanier vs Hayes is an interesting debate - one was very good at what the other lacked - Hayes was a great defender, but inefficient scorer, Lanier the opposite. I guess Hayes' superior longevity and durability should earn him the edge.

[penbeast0]

Was it 74? Thanks, I think I wrote 75.

And you can't discount that Hayes's teams were contenders for a decade going to 3 finals and winning a ring. Lanier's teams were less good, though Lanier never had a Wes Unseld playing next to him (the rest of the teams are reasonably comparable).

[Owly]

Addendum at the top I say he's near the top of my (single year) peak WS/48-PER pythagorean ranking, the following are those above him who aren't in yet
PPR Score PPR Rank name
29.69848481 17 Amare Stoudemire
32.80243893 18 Neil Johnston
43.56604182 25 Paul Arizin
47.38143096 26 Bob McAdoo
54.3783045 30 Walt Bellamy
55.90169944 31 Terrell Brandon
63.07138812 33 Elton Brand
65.30696747 35 Ed Macauley
67.53517602 36 Emanuel Ginobili
68.01470429 37 Arvydas Sabonis
76.53103945 42 Larry Foust
77.46612163 43 Bob Lanier

I want to say you posted it once, but would you mind again posting the equation that arrives at these numbers?

Thread 49 (on Parish)

Best career value added on the board including an underrated peak (40th by my WS/48 - PER peak pythogrean rank -not absolutely up to date -; i.e. rank the best player seasons (one season per player) in each stat, square where they rank in each, add the two together square root -technically unnecesary - and then rank by that - far from perfect I know; 59th best peak in WS/48; 43rd in PER; again not completely up to date).

As before it's not anything close to perfect (I think I discussed why later in the thread, obvious reasons), but a nice first glance reference for the best one year (boxscore) peaks. I think you needed to have 1000 minutes and obviously you need top be one of the top 250ish players (so not player seasons- only one season per player) by peak metric X season, so as to have a number to rank by. Hayes doesn't appear on the PPR rank because his peak PER season at 19.8 (approx, as it's neither a top 250 player-season, nor top 10 within it's year it's only one DP is shown and the "rounding" at bkb-ref is sometimes a bit wonky). The cutoff when I did it was 19.97 (Don Otten 251).

Actually Hayes didn't make the 251 WS/48 peaks either, tied 251st (or 251.5) on 0.1765 WS/48 are Rik Smits and
Derek Harper. His best was .173 twice (in '75 .1726; in '77 he wasn't top 10 so we don't have an exact number).

And even after factoring in era issues with regard to metrics (particularly PER, and with point that this affects Lanier just as much anyway, for that part of the general discussion) it's hard not to see a red flag in Hayes not making the top 250 (again, players, not player seasons) with regard to peak, for either metric.

[Owly]

Was it 74? Thanks, I think I wrote 75.

And you can't discount that Hayes's teams were contenders for a decade going to 3 finals and winning a ring. Lanier's teams were less good, though Lanier never had a Wes Unseld playing next to him (the rest of the teams are reasonably comparable).

See this is where we differ.

To me Unseld, Chenier are good, Porter has two of his better years. Truck Robinson is a nice reserve big, Riordan, Jimmy Jones and Weatherspoon make a nice solid rotation.

Later Kupchack looks a better big per minute (despite being played 3-5 behind Dandridge, Hayes and Unseld), Dandridge looks good by the boxscore and on D, Unseld is bouncing back, Ballard a nice reserve and again not much in the way of guys who shouldn't be in a rotation pinching minutes.

Detroit looks like they had a lot of starters who were below league average through Lanier's best years. Bing is a notable, but past his best. But mostly it's assorted Ford's and Rowe's, and more players at or below replacement level in and around the rotation. Only Mengelt (a shooter/hustler) and Shumate, maybe Kevin Porter depending on the year and his effort on D, look like starter calibre players on a semi-contender. Shumate wasn't around much and for whatever reason Mengelt wasn't on court that much.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rder_by=ws

by comparison (for the same years which is probably also Hayes' short prime, and the period where he had there heralded team success, though Hayes does one more year at that standard on the end).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rder_by=ws

Chenier, Unseld, Kupchak, Robinson, a better version of Porter, Dandridge, young Ballard (not that these are all at once) are just a better supporting cast. Motta and K.C. seem like better coaches than Ray Scott and Herb Brown too.

Given the gulf in their metrics (except those where you credit Hayes for pure longevity at average productivity), you'd have to think Hayes was vastly superior to Lanier on D to have an advantage and, Hayes being quite good on that end aside, I just can't buy Lanier as a net negative on D, especially given that the contemporary reviews are predominantly (near exclusively) positive for his short prime and suggest an excellent combination of size and agility and his boxscore numbers on that end look good too.

I can't help but feel a combination of that championship halo effect and Hayes' accolades/awards (in large part due to playing a weaker position, and partially due to better teammates) tend (historically and instinctively) to place him above Lanier. But to me, both the tangiables and intangiables clearly say Lanier.

[magicmerl]

I don't understand the support for Allen Iverson. He's a very flawed first option and his ego wouldn't let him play any other role, so if I'm a GM wanting to put together a championship contender, I wouldn't touch him with a barge pole.

At this point all of the bonafide championship anchors are already voted in, so we're now looking at players who can maximise their talents and contributions while not being the alpha dog of the team.

Dennis Rodman,Ben Wallace, Kevin Johnson seem like the most likely candidates.

Ben Wallace: Rebounded and defended at an elite level. The best player on the Pistons championship team. His offense was incredibly anemic though, and it's hard to value a 1-way player as highly. Got much better in the playoffs. Elite rebounder.

Kevin Johnson: Appears at times to be as hood as or better than Stockton, although less durable. Suffered from the same problem as stock of peaking while MJ was around. Like all PGs, not the best defender.

Dennis Rodman: The GOAT rebounder? Definitely in the top 5 anyway. Numerous cons, most notably requiring very strong alpha on the same team to keep him in line, and needed to be surrounded by scorers to make up for his relative lack of offensive inclination. His rebounding is a bit of a mirage though, as Detroit didn't lose any defensive rebounding at all when he left, and only 3 offensive boards a game. And San Antonio gains ORebs when they acquired him, but their defensive rebounding barely improved at the team level. The Spurs led the league in rebounding after he left. The Bulls improved substantially in both areas, but Rodman's numbers actually went down, so that's more of a team concept thing.

I'm (not going to vote for Kevin McHale) going to vote for Ben Wallace.

[Quotatious]

Kevin McHale: Called the 'black hole' by his teammates, that seems reasonable to me given his prodigious efficiency. Managed to be a fantastic second banana and defensive cover for Bird. Great chemistry guy. The textbook for low post moves.

For me this comes down to Wallace vs McHale. How do you choose between the great second option and the weak first option?

I'm going to vote for Kevin McHale.

McHale is already in since #44.

[Basketballefan]

Vote: Dominique Wilkins

Scoring champion, finished 2nd in MVP voting in a league with peak Magic, Bird, Moses, Dr J, Kareem. Was the foundation of the Hawks franchise and nearly unstoppable.

Not that i dont think Wilkins can be argued at this spot, but i'm not sure i get your reasoning. I don't think finishing 2nd in mvp voting means anything, didn't melo finish 2nd behind lbj in 2013? Also, i don't see how Wilkins was "unstoppable" it appears he was stopped pretty easily come playoffs.

[ChiTown6rings]

I don't get the Iverson love either.

-Allen Iverson has 4 Scoring Titles.

A. Three of those 4 seasons featured the WORST FG% for a scoring champion in the modern era.

B. The 2001-02 scoring title was won with the worst FG% in NBA history... Yes NBA HISTORY.

During that 2001 playoff run, he shot below 40% from the field THIRTEEN times in 22 games. The team went 7-6 in those 13 games.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... offs::none

In that Milwaukee series, he shot 34% and they still won.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... #PHI::none

[Joao Saraiva]

I don't get the Iverson love either.

-Allen Iverson has 4 Scoring Titles.

A. Three of those 4 seasons featured the WORST FG% for a scoring champion in the modern era.

B. The 2001-02 scoring title was won with the worst FG% in NBA history... Yes NBA HISTORY.

During that 2001 playoff run, he shot below 40% from the field THIRTEEN times in 22 games. The team went 7-6 in those 13 games.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... offs::none

In that Milwaukee series, he shot 34% and they still won.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... #PHI::none

I already went game by game in a previous thread showing his games in 2001. He actually performed really well many times. A good example is game 7 vs toronto. He shot like crap, yet he had 17 assists.

His playmaking and rebounding were good at many games, and so was his D. How about the game he missed? Care to explain his teammtes FG%?

[penbeast0]

The Iverson debate ties into a possible debate between Nate Thurmond and Ben Wallace. Both great defenders and excellent rebounders; offensively, one shoots low efficiency on sometimes high volumes while the other barely shoots at all. If Iverson is a positive offensively despite his efficiency (not compared to other scoring stars this time but just a positive for his team which I think trex has safely established), is Thurmond's inefficient shooting more valuable than Ben's avoidance of shooting and by how much?

[magicmerl]

The Iverson debate ties into a possible debate between Nate Thurmond and Ben Wallace. Both great defenders and excellent rebounders; offensively, one shoots low efficiency on sometimes high volumes while the other barely shoots at all. If Iverson is a positive offensively despite his efficiency (not compared to other scoring stars this time but just a positive for his team which I think trex has safely established), is Thurmond's inefficient shooting more valuable than Ben's avoidance of shooting and by how much?

If you shoot at low efficiency, I think the less you shoot the better.